This weekend, the Oregon Manifest kicked off with their Oregon Manifest Constructors Challenge contest and race. The Oregon Manifest, their hand built bike show, has expanded this year from a long weekend highlighting local builders to a six week celebration of all things bicycle related. The schedule of events puts our annual Bike Month celebration to shame and definitely gives Austin something to shoot for.
Pereira Cycles, the winning design, had this clever integrated U-lock. Beautiful bike, but one wonders what happens if the rack is not on that level with the bike. Image courtesy of Elly Blue, BikePortland.
As a builder of custom transportation bicycles, I was excited to hear about the Constructors Challenge. The challenge called on builders from all over the U.S. to “design and build an innovative, modern transportation bike in this technical trial of engineering dexterity and fabrication mettle.” I was unaware of the contest until after the submission deadline but was excited to see what some of the best custom builders in the country would come up with. I’ve been pretty critical of the larger bicycle industry in its focus on racing and recreation design prejudices when offering transportation bicycles and had high hopes for my frame building brethren in this challenge. Unconstrained by the demands of meeting high volume price points or marketing schedules, surely custom builders would show up the big boys when it comes to designing something from scratch for a specific purpose. Well, it turns out my fellow builders share many of the same biases as the mass market builders.
Over the weekend, I took a look at a gallery of the 31 bikes submitted for this contest thanks to the excellent coverage of the event by BikePortland. (The Oregon Manifest site is pretty static and has no such coverage or pictures.) The bikes were beautifully made and great eye candy for the bike geek. How well they meet the needs of the transportation cyclists is another matter.
My favorite, the Ahearne step through looks great and nails all the needs of the transportation cyclist. Image courtesy of Elly Blue, BikePortland.
Here are some interesting observations:
- Front racks favoring the larger Porter style were the norm.
- The vast majority of bikes had road drop bars.
- Only two of the design winning bikes had chain guards.
- Out of the 12 selected design winners, I saw kick stands on only 4 bikes.
- Out of the entire picture gallery I saw only a half dozen bikes with kick stands.
- One of the winning bikes had no rack.
- Half a dozen entries did not have fenders.
- Three of the entries did not have an on-board lighting system.
- One of the builders seemed to have completely ignored the stated purpose of the contest and submitted a straight up fixed gear road bike with no fenders, rack, or lights lacking even the eyelets to retrofit these necessities.
- Another resorted to the tried and true bike industry tactic: mounting a rack on a straight up mountain bike and calling it transportation.
The beautifully painted Circle A Cycles entry adopted the French light touring design that was very popular in the entries. The design is a limited on carrying load but would make a good transportation bike (with the addition of a kickstand!) Image courtesy of Elly Blue, BikePortland.
If we are designing transportation bicycles, they need to address the functions of every day mobility: how to get you in regular clothes and your things from here to there in a variety of weather conditions both night and day. It appears over half the entries fail on at least one of these points. The widespread omission of kick stands alone is baffling as anyone who has ever tried to load groceries on a bike knows a kick stand is worth every ounce and risk of Fredness. This is even more important with all the huge front racks on display as loading heavy front loads can make the bike quite unstable as the front wheel flops.
Natalie Ramsland of SweetPea rode my personal favorite, the Ahearne step through. Unlike many competitors, Ramsland wore street clothes doing it up right with the little black dress. Image courtesy of Elly Blue, BikePortland.
In fairness to the builders, the language of the Challenge was much more touchy feely and less specifically practical than my design parameters. The technical trial also no doubtedly played a part in the designs as well. The trial was based on the old French touring bike technical trials of the 20s and 30s that helped innovate the industry with the development of reliable derailluers, strong brakes, and light weight steel frames. The idea of testing the bikes in their element to drive innovation is a great one and the Manifest organizers had a real potential to do something special here. Unfortunately, they choose a 70 mile course that involved only one stop to pick some beer up. No wonder the road bike/light touring bike design was the favorite and many choose spandex over street clothes. The winner was determined by the best time while the French trials involved a points system that rewarded overall speed but tempered practicality where the fastest rider was not necessarily the winner. If this course’s purpose was to determine the best transportation bike for every day living, the organizers need to go back to the drawing board. Let’s see points for wearing regular clothes, carrying a two bags of groceries, locking and unlocking your bike, and the state of cleanliness of your clothes at the end.
This course is hardly a fair representation of what transportation cyclists need every day. The average urban cycling trip is less than 5 miles and involves navigating city streets and locking up your bike. Replacing a car means carrying groceries and children and wearing street cloths. The bike well suited for a 70 mile ride is not the same as a bike for daily urban life. There are trade-offs in functionality and performance made to meet these two different tasks. I don’t know a good design that will do both equally well.
Another integrated lock on the Cielo by Chris King. A bit more flexible but thin cable is lower security. Image courtesy of Elly Blue, BikePortland.
If we are to get more of the general public using bikes as practical, every day transportation, we need to jetison our more extreme past. Most people just want to get from point A to B in comfort not race. I think these kind of users would have a hard time seeing their life lived on two wheels with most of the design entries. The builder needs to think about this and not let their own riding style dominate their design. If he or she is not willing to do that, the builder should pass on the build and recommend another builder who is passionate and invested in the riding style and needs of the rider. Similarly, the Oregon Manifest needs to get more specific in their challenge. Are we designing the best bike for a randonnuering brevet or the bike that will inspire someone who does not consider themselves a cyclist to get out of that car and experience the sublime simplicity of city cycling? If it is the latter, you can expect an entry from me next year.
Related posts:
- Texas Custom Bicycle Show rolls into Austin this weekend ...
- Framebuilder happy hour tonight & two more builders confirmed for the Texas Custom Bicycle Show ...
- Wrap up of Texas Custom Bicycle Show ...
- Texas Custom Bicycle Show coming to Austin this fall ...
- Texas Custom Bicycle Show coming in October ...
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Yeah, just show up with a Big Dummy and be done with it.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Xtracycle compatible long tail, yes. However, I’d make it one of my own creations like this recently completed long tail with Stokemonkey pedal assist: http://www.flickr.com/photos/36746172@N02/sets/72157622356320919/
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Right on with the Fergulong, Elliot. And I think you points on the Manifest contest are right on. Heck — even this “new” (mega mass market) Electra has a bunch of them beat.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
duh, forgot the Electra link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cleverchimp/3953956426/)
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
The race was certainly not in line with the idea of an urban bike, but it could have been a good test to see if these things would last. 77 miles off/on road could tell you who actually made a worthy bike and who just went for pretty lugs and paint job. Unfortunately, some bikes failed this test and were still awarded top 12. Hufnagel’s bike rattled apart, was partially disassembled and parts were driven back to the finish. But he still got 9th place in the design challenge. When he was given the award, some of the crowd booed. So it was fairly obvious that failure and non-utilitarian designs don’t matter when its the local boys.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Elliot,
It is interesting to hear your perspective on the event. I find your tone a bit off-putting, but there is definitely room for some criticism here. Please do come next year. It’s sure to be more polished. I’m a little biased, but I think the organizers did a heck of a job for their first stab. The course was designed to be a bit of a torture test, so it didn’t fit the typical “urban ride.”
I found it very interesting to see how each builder tackled the challenge. These bikes take lots of time and money to build, so some did not have the luxury of building a bike specifically for the challenge. Some submitted a bike built for a customer who’s needs weren’t the same as those of the challenge. Some were excited to be part of the challenge even though the bikes they build aren’t normally used for transport. I’m glad they chose to be a part of the inaugural event, it will only make it better next time.
FYI, the lock on my bike will fit around any vertical pole up to about 3″. There’s usually a street sign or fence pole if there isn’t a rack. Here in Portland (where the bike was designed to be ridden) those racks are pretty much everywhere. I also plan to carry a cable to secure the wheels when parking in risker places, so that gives even more options. As with all the bikes I build, this one was built for the given riders needs. In this case that was me and the challenge. I can hardly wait for the Manifest to be over so that I can get that bike back and ride it every day.
See you next year,
-Tony
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Tony,
I’m sorry if my tone was was off putting, but I am expressing my frustration at an industry that says it wants lots of people on bikes then provides them with bikes that require a lot of effort to use. We give urban bike users fixed gear bikes or mountain bikes and expect them to adapt rather than building something that will make living with the bicycle as a legitimate form of transportation. It seems the contest did not address this either.
As a custom builder, I’m am very aware of how much time is involved in designing and building a bike. I happen to think your bike was one of the better ones both aesthetically and practically and don’t disagree with your award. I mentioned the lock issue only because in Austin we are often confronted with places that have no established bike parking or a wide variety of racks. This means you need more flexibility when locking. Your explanation makes sense for the application (making a bike custom to the specific city takes custom to the extreme
You execution was great and it is a wonderful bike.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Elliott,
I think you are on the right track when you wrote about the importance of language. The language used in the call for entries was not the language used to describe the event by the time it came to pass. Furthermore, the criteria called for were not the criteria used in the final judging.
As a participant, this part hurts a bit when you’ve invested a lot of time and money. In my opinion, the judges needed to be in on defining the event rules from the beginning. I believe they were unable to do what was asked of them by organizers. In the end, it became another beauty contest like any tradeshow (and there were many beautiful bikes) which does not aim for OM’s uniquely stated intent to “…:educate the public about the quality, engineering ingenuity, and functionality of handbuilt bikes.”
Fully half of the design parameters were not judged including, from the ten race criteria:
2. Handling – The bike must handle equally well with and without load. Both options will be tested against turning and straight pedaling. (not judged)
5. Overall response to the course and challenges
Entry bikes must take into consider all elements of the race course, the 10 design considerations and the overall challenges they present. (Gorgeous work but one awardee didn’t even race)
7. Security
Bikes must be protected from theft while unattended. A smart, easy solution for securing the bike under different conditions is expected. (not tested)
8. Portage
Bikes must accommodate being carried by its rider over a section of the course. (no portage section)
10. Quality and Rattles
If elements are loose, rattling, or otherwise inoperable at the race finish, points will be deducted for each failure.(not evaluated)
I will say that it was truly a fun event and I appreciate the efforts of sponsors, organizers, judges, builders, racers and the gods of weather. Everyone was super nice and clearly wanted to do a good job. Those I spoke to in detail were also taking note of how to improve on only the first year of this challenge. So I am psyched to have participated and I am very happy with the bike I entered, especially, as Tony mentioned, because it was made for a customer who is happy and that was my prime directive. I don’t know if the OM results would be different had they judged everything on their call-for-entries criteria but unfortunately, the public is not any more aware of what makes a good handmade transportation bike.
I look forward to meeting you at version 2.0.
Cheers,
Jonathan
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Hi there- I’m the guy that made the “straight up road fixed gear” and thought I would add a little bit more info.
As I read the challenge, we were making transportation bikes, but not “bikes for the masses”. It seemed clear to me from the onset that this event was heavily focused on the assumed ephemera of bicycle commuting (racks, lights, fenders, etc), and that this event was going to be viewed by the mass market producers. I decided to build myself a custom bike that met my specific needs. With the included back pack and u-lock it meets every criteria listed in the strictest possible sense without being a riding accessory bike.
Knowing that this event was going to be watched by the larger bike industry I wanted to make two points clear- ANY bike that gets ridden is a fantastic commuter bike, and that as a custom builder I didn’t feel I needed to bring my “A game” to do design work for large scale bicycle producers. I build lots of bikes with integrated racks, fenders, lights and even kickstands, but for this event I built a bike I love that fits my needs, and was a tongue in cheek comment on the event. I’d like to give a big thanks to the folks that got the joke and laughed along, as well as the folks that didn’t.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
…interesting discussion. As a transportation rider with no building skills, it’s exciting to me to see the passion and cleverness folks are bringing to this problem. Here’s to the next competition!
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Jonathan,
That’s really frustrating. I had not followed this closely enough to realize that had put together a true transportation bike guide line and technical trial only to throw it out. I have to say this gives me pause in making a decision to participate in a future contest. I’m not sure I or many other builders would want to take the time and effort to design and build a submission if they the judges aren’t going to follow the guidelines.
Eric,
I guess I missed the joke. I agree any bike riding is good, but I wouldn’t submit a mountain bike for a criterium bike competition or an cargo bike for a track bike competition. While your bike may work for you, that doesn’t mean it’s a good transportation bike. If I can be a part of making the mass producers provide actually useful bikes for the masses, I’m OK with that. I’d rather get people out of cars and change our communities than hoard the knowledge for my small customer base.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I agree fully with Tony and Jonathan who, by the way, both built a class act bikes for this contest. Congratulations to both. The build parameters were left to the interpretation of the individual builder and each had his or her own unique perspective to bring to the competition, and apparently so did the judges. If one thinks for a minute that something was lost on the part of educating the public about handbuilt bicycles, then I say think again. The absolute best source of information on the subject comes from the actual builders themselves and what is learned by each builder in this kind of a competition is invaluable. I believe form the most experienced to the new builders each have brought something to the table. Notes are taken. Advice is given. Especially after the beer starts to flow. In many cases hundreds of hours are spent with a calculator and scratch pad trying work out the exact design of these bike.
Some built to show off the bling. Some built to test the newest technologies. And some held to the tried and true. That so called conventional mountain bike was actually a test bed bike for marrying a gear hub with a belt drive (the only belt drive there) while maintaining as short a wheelbase as possible all without having to resort to an offset wheel from centerline to get a correct chainline, which also means an offset to the rear triangle. That bike had 700c wheels which could have just as easily been mounted with cyclocross tires or even smooth street tires. The only thing that made it a mountain bike was tire choice. It had the new Paragon dropout combination which allows access to belt installation. The seat tube was curved at the bottom bracket to allow bringing the rear tire in which allows one to kick out the front end to create clearance for that riders pesky toe when used with big tire. That industry standard rack was designed to carry a specific rack bag that was insulated to keep the beer cold (very important!), and carry the required items mandated by the Manifest with minimal mounting intrusion on the frame which creates stress points.
I understand criticism over a mountain bike in the mix, but I also know these Oregon mountains, and Portland is a city in the wilderness. Portland has one park alone that is over 6000 acres of mountain trails yet still inside the city limits. Note that Oregon isn’t just Portland, but that Portland is gateway to huge off road recreation. Some people want both an urban commuter and an off road bike here.
There was much to be learned from this experience.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Well, I’ve been drooling from afar, but wondered too about how the course fit with the city/transportation bike standard. Kudos to Metrofiets for racing their cargo bike, and to any street clothed riders. Or the ones who took the flaneur approach with lengthy beer and lunch stops.
My favorite part about the Pereira bike was not just how the lock integrates (and fits the Portland staple rack standard), but that it seemed to be the only porteur rack design that addressed the likelihood that the bike would fall over when loaded, even with a kickstand. How sad would I be if my custom lollipop bike kept falling over at Trader Joe’s. The integrated front lock with headset lock function appears to solve that problem problem in a way I hadn’t seen before. And with locking skewers (Pitlock, etc) you might not even need a cable.
I wish I’d seen a frame-mounted front rack, or a longtail (Pereira’s done one, I believe, and swore he’d not do another? I don’t imagine it’s at all easy). I like your recent version, Elliott.
But for next year? Extra special bonus points and power-ups to any designer with a kid seat on their bike. Cargo that throws its weight (and snacks) around and is apt to fall asleep on you is my favorite cargo. Not a big custom market for bikes that most families need for only 3-5 years, but by going the longtail or long john route, you could have a bike for the kid years and then for general cargo bike needs. I’d come down to Portland for that design challenge!
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Great point, Julian. Carrying children is often left out of the equation when offering transportation bikes as if having children means you have to buy an SUV and move to the suburbs. The Xtracycle does a good job as well as the bakfiets. I’m a fan of Metrofiets, but was disappointed as well that there wasn’t more in the way of cargo.
As the father of a 5 and 3 three old, I believe you can still live life on two wheels with children. They love it, and we have some great conversations. That’s why I offer child seat options on my bikes and the Xtracycle frame I references will soon be added to the line up as a standard model (with handle bar system in the works.)
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I guess I miss how if the bike “works for me” it is not a “good transportation bike”?
In my mind getting people out of cars has a lot more to do with infrastructure, safety, city planning, education and advocacy.
It was a fun event, and great opportunity to meet new and old friends. I had fun seeing what people brought to the table and enjoyed the predominant vibe from the builders.
on Oct 5th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Chris,
The belt drive with internal hub is a welcome addition, but not revolutionary. Several companies are introducing the option (I’m building a Ferguson city bike myself with one for a customer right now.)
I’d say the suspension front, MTB geometry, and flat handlebars is what screamed mountain bike to me, not necessarily the tires. The suspension is less than ideal for efficient on street riding, but I guess it could be an option for someone who really likes the mountain bike set up. It still needs some fenders and preferably chain guard and kick stand to be a serious transportation bike in my opinion.
My groan reaction to this comes from the “commuter” option the mass marketers have passed off as an ideal transportation bike in the last decade. They were basically mountain bikes with slicks and a rack thrown on not bikes built to a purpose. They weren’t awful but they sure weren’t good.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Eric,
I totally agree with you on the infrastructure, education, etc. However, the bicycle is a tool, and the better it is designed to meet the needed task, the more people will ride it.
Image if you are new to cycling for transportation. You biked as a kid, maybe in college, but now you are intrigued by the possibility of a cheap, health, simple transportation option to replace a car. The bike you are given puts you in an aggressive riding position, has a single gear, splashes mud on your cloths, gets grease on your pants, doesn’t have anywhere to put that jug of milk you needed to pick up, falls over when you unlock it. To top it all off, you have to be home before dark because otherwise cars on the road will not see you.
How long are you going to ride this bike before you chuck it and return to your car? That’s what I mean. You are a cycling enthusiast who values a lot of different features in a bike and appreciates the nuance of different designs. You are not like most people (that’s a good thing.)
I just think we shouldn’t make things harder then they need to be, and if I’m getting a bike for transportation, it needs to address these issues or it is not a good tool for the job.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 2:38 am
@Chris#12: It’s true Portland has a beautiful 6000 acre park within city limits, but a mountain bike is overkill for all the legal riding available there within. It is one of the shames we live with: all this bounty of forest and great (hiking) trails, but the best mountain biking requires at least an hour to two hours driving to access. As a dedicated mountain biker I find the drive is worth it. But Portland is not as it were, a good mountain biking city.
Elliot, you’re criticism only adds to the discussion and should be appreciated. I think it would be a shame if you did not enter a submission next year as it would also be a shame if the organizers do not take away from this inaugaral event the initiative to correct some of the over-looked details you and others have pointed out.
And by the way, Metrofiets toted five times the required beer!
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Yes Elliot. I agree. I think the issue here is that the build parameters contradict what has been called out for which is a transportation bike. But even the term “transportation bike” is subjective. Where I live a good transportation bike is one you strap a lunch box onto, ride five miles up to the sawmill, and at the end of the work day swing in for a six-pack to haul home. Then maybe head up some log road to check a trap and hope a mountain lion doesn’t mistake you for prey. But don’t worry, I also lived in Portland for many years, so I understand urban transportation too.
You are right, the belt and internal gear hub are nothing new. The difficulty for a builder in some cases is to find components that work together to get a proper chain line. The competition was not about revolutionary ideas but solving problems. The mountain frame entry accomplished a centerline without offsets and it is not component specific. It can accommodate a 50 mm tire for traction on a gravel roads with a greatly reduced wheelbase for quick maneuvering in technical situations without catching a toe and throwing a rider. Everything else you mentioned are simply bolt on components if wanted.
The geometry of that mountain bike frame is such that it will support a rigid fork which was originally the intent for the frame. When one looks at the preview images of the race course with gated log roads and washboard gravel roads, a suspension fork which lockouts via a switch on the handle bars is a pretty smart move. On that first 10 mile gravel decent (very steep and winding), I am sure many of those riders were wishing for that fork to be on their bike. I know of at least one rider who dropped out at that point knowing it might be his death to proceed further.
Parameter 5. Overall response to the course and challenges:
Entry bikes must take into consider all elements of the race course…
So what is one to do? Build a town bike that will kill you on a road which one has no business riding it on, let alone racing it on, or build a robust bike that is versatile enough to switch about a few components to match the use you desire?
The first hill (pavement) was something like six miles of 7% grade up and than back down. One can reach phenomenal speeds on a long decent like that. The corners were tight and blind on one side with shear canyon drops on the opposite. The road was heavily traveled by lumber and log trucks, and the asphalt was beaten into a near state of gravel with deep chuck holes, and in some ways was more dangerous than the gravel roads because of the high speed. Imagine a blind corner at high speed with a 2 foot wide 8 inch deep chuck hole in your path and you are going too fast to miss it. Brutal.
As Tony said, “The course was designed to be a bit of a torture test…”
If you really want to sum it up. The parameters for the competition might mean build a Ferrari that will four-wheel like a Hummer and haul a cord of wood like a pickup and then call it a transportation bike.
So the question here is this: What was the challenge meant for, to find a better transportation bike or see who could build the toughest off road bike, or a combination of both? Can the two be melded into one?
That is what needs to be sorted out before a single competition entry can be considered a failure or success.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Charlie
Thanks for setting me straight on the limited access for those who use that beautiful park in Portland. One of the reasons I moved to where I am now is to have access to a great area called Shellburg Falls, which boarders Silver Falls State Park with many miles of shared use biking trails. There is an effort to complete a new freeride area similar to Blackrock just above Shellburg Falls. There are some great trails like Shellburg Creek trail and August mountain trails. I have choices here.
I agree with you that Elliot’s criticism is good for generating discussion, and agree that it would be good to see a submission from him next year. Every entry brings something to the table and perhaps his will be the one that defines the solution or at least adds to it, provided the solution request is the same next time. I am not so sure it will be the same.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Chris,
I appreciate the explanation of the design. It looks like a lot of thought was put into it and it does address some problems. I certainly think there is more than one way to skin the transportation cat, and I can see how this particular bike could address more rugged conditions (or quite a few of the pot hole struned roads in Austin!) I still think you need fenders on that thing!
I would very much like to participate next year (I’d also love to see what Mike Flanigan of A.N.T. would come up with.) I just want to make sure that the organizers stay true to the initially stated guidelines so as not to waste the builders time.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Next year, I’d like to see more consistency in the contest. It’s pretty stupid to tell builders to build one thing (“innovative, modern transportation bike”) and then judge them on another.
What happened to the other half of the judgment criteria? Why did we have a test ride that no one would consider representative of a normal commute or beer run? Doesn’t mean the test ride has to be easy, but it should be more fitting of what you’re supposedly testing.
I think the judges got a little overwhelmed with pretty colors and shiny things, and forgot what they were supposed to be doing.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Elliott
I agree. Fenders are needed. There are many rainy days in the real world. Most of the entries had them but were removed for the race. Perhaps next year. Dust off the airbrush, pour on the bling, and hope their is some kind of continuity between judging and build parameters.
The first event has been a good a learning tool for all who participated and those who are considering next year. Those who want to participate in the next event have the advantage of studying the struggles and successes of the first participants for the purpose of bringing their best ideas on what is appropriate.
Time to refit, retool, and replace the calculator’s battery.
Good luck, Chris
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Elliot — I found your comments very interesting. As someone who works 9 to 5 and has equally busy weekends (I co-own a bike business), I did not have time in my schedule to see the challenge in person. However, from the photos at this and other sites I can say that I am pleased with how the first event of its kind in DECADES turned out. The scope and variety of designs is refreshing (like you, I especially liked the Ahearne Mixte and the Metrofiets cargo long-bike), and the fact that bikes lacked kickstands, fenders or other things is simply indicative of the wide range of opinion in what constitutes what I will call a “sensible” bicycle. I am sure that in future such events these issues will be addressed, while still others will pop up prompting more detailed discussion of bike design and applicability.
That said, I would also like to agree with you that too many of the bikes featured front portage, many to the exclusion of rear portage. Porteur racks are being slapped on to many different kinds of bikes as “the” way to carry a load, when in fact they are not applicable to every bike geometry or to every rider. (Lots of people don’t care for the extra upper body strength required to manage a heavy front load, or for the handling of a front-loading bike when the rack is empty. Worse, too many people don’t understand the importance of frame geometry — specifically fork rake, wheel trail and chainstay length — in determining where to best place a load on a bike. I would like to bet that, in the case of experienced frame builders, those things were of course taken into account when designing a front-loading bike.)
I think that overall, this event was a breath of fresh air into an industry that has needed it for a long time. I look forward to future similar events in Portland and elsewhere.
I will be volunteering at the Copenhagen exhibit (at the Oregon Manifest HQ) for the next couple of weeks and cannot wait to see some of the winning designs up close.
Finally, I’d also like to add that for many of us, a mountain bike with a front basket or rear rack (or both) is a PERFECTLY fine form of serious urban transportation. I’ve used one for years. If you don’t believe me, check out the number of these bikes that can be found in every major American city as people rediscover atb’s that have languished in basements and garages for the last twenty years. There’s plenty of room for , well, just about EVERYTHING here. And bicycle design is all the richer for it. Happy riding!
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Beth,
I totally agree on the Porteur rack comments. You put that much on the front, you’d better have the fork geometry to handle it (read do not put one of these on your road or cyclocross bike!) Of course, once you make those concessions, the bike isn’t going to be a lot of fun to ride without the rack. I wonder why no rear rack as well on a lot of these. Bakfiets have an enormous amount of room in the front but still usually have a rear ask well. That space isn’t doing anything and you might as well have more carrying capacity.
On the mountain bike front, I think they make pretty average transportation bikes. The reason so many people ride them is that is all we’ve been offered. Go to Europe, and everyone is riding Dutch style city bikes, not mountain bikes. I think once you ride a bike designed from the get go to serve the function of a transportation bike, most people would go with that over mountain bikes, but to each his/her own.
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I agree with the overall discussion and share frustrations with the discrepancies between the race (which highly influenced what I brought: light break away tour bike w/ fenders, integrated lighting, front and rear bag support and rear pannier rack) and the judging and the general inconsistency in the judging process.
I had a great time- thoroughly enjoyed meeting and riding with other builders and interesting folks in the bike world. I learned a lot about approaching such events in the future, and am likely to come back again.
I just wish I had brought my smallhaul cycletruck (which needs a kickstand).
on Oct 6th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Josh,
Love your cargo bike (I liked the Ritchey Breakway touring bike you submitted too.) I read about it in Bicycle Quarterly, and it seems like the first real attempt to innovate the Long John/Bakfiets design in some time. Well done.
on Oct 7th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I think this article is a little too critical concerning what the writer feels is an appropriate load carrying bike. Many peoples needs are very different based on however they might want to carry a load.
My girlfriend is a gardener and uses a bianchi\extracycle and I use a lemond “yellow jersey” with a rack and bags. both carry plenty. Ive carried 5 foot high piles of brush on the lemond and sometimes she only carries a lock.
Sometimes people only want one bike in their life and you have to weigh alot of options when choosing one. Perhaps you want a bike that will carry groceries AND take you 150 miles out of the city. If thats the case many of thes bike fit that category and the electra taking up space in the cheese isle would definitley be the wrong bike.
My main argument with the manifest was that the design callenge was really stacked with oregon builders and that (correct me if Im wrong) none of the race winners even made it into the top 5. Where sat loose racks and bikes that werent even ridden.
All in all every one worked really hard and there were many great bikes in the Manifest. Good luck next year!
on Oct 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
smelly pants (did you pick that name so I’d have to repeat it!),
I agree that there are multiple ways to get to the same solution. I think any design contest should focus on the problems that need addressing or challenges that need to be met and then give the builders carte blanche to come up with creative solutions. So example, one guideline might be keeping street cloths clean. A traditional set of fenders and chain guard is perfectly acceptable solution, but there may be other more creative ways to get the same results. The design challenge ought to promote innovation.
I do use tried and true design elements in my bike to produce a bike with the purpose of transportation cycling. Mine is not the only way, but the practical needs of the transportation cyclists must be taken into account for a design to be good.
As for a bike that accomplishes everyday needs and is also fun to ride 150 miles, I’m not sure there is a design that handles both of these objectives in a satisfactory way. The Xtracycle design is probably the one that could come closest. Randonneuring bikes can do the job as well but are usually more limited in what they can carry.
on Oct 8th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Wow, that was a great constructors competition! Lots of skill evident, and original thinking. Tonys lock that doubled as a flickstand was ingenious. Aherenes bike was my favorite. Joshs bike was really nice but his smallhaul is a real showstopper. Maybe next year we will see it there.
I can understand some of the criticism, but hey, this was the first one. It will only get better. And perhaps we will see some more thinking out of the box; for example, how about the Raleigh 20, or Japanese shopper bike! Small wheels could make a great city bike. Wheels are much stronger, toeclip overlap never happens, low standover height (people of different heights could ride it), a triple crank can be on a double spindle, they need not be burdened with low rider racks- the load is already low! lots more vertical space for carrying stuff, and if portability (or folding) is in the design, integrating with the car, bus or train is a real advantage for a city bike. And Paul de Vivie (Velocio) recommended them!
I wonder why Bike Friday did not enter something? Maybe I gotta enter this competition myself next year to show that small wheels rock.
on Oct 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Drew,
I think the small wheel bikes are especially good for those with limited space or going multi-modal. The main drawback I see to them is the ride quality is not as great as larger wheels. It also seems like most 20″ bikes are not equipped to carry very much. This is a natural trade-off in the folding versions, but I’d be interested to see what others come up with.
on Oct 16th, 2009 at 1:03 am
I saw a mention of this contest right before the deadline. I read the rules and was stumped, so I just resolved to look at the entrants. Finding out that the judges were also stumped by the rules doesn’t surprise me, but it does grate a little. I think the rules really did suggest a mountain bike with fenders, lights and racks or at least a cross bike with fenders, lights and racks.
To me, any bike with fenders and lights is at least a reasonable transportation bike. My commuter is a touring bike, and it works pretty well. The only issue I have with it is that the gears ice up 5 times a year when we have freezing rain. So I’m building a commuter with an IGH, chaincase and better racks. It wouldn’t work on a 70 mile multi-surface brevet, but I think it will be a good transportation bike. I wouldn’t mind a fixed gear, but I have too much climbing for that when I’m trying not to sweat on my work clothes.
on Oct 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am
First off, my hat’s off to the organizers for pulling this off. It was no small undertaking and none of us should lose sight of that. With that said, my take on it was first and foremost the bikes should behave like well made bikes. If that hurdle isn’t cleared then that bike should not be judged. I assumed the race was the testing ground and the bikes would be judged after and not before. That obviously isn’t what happened because there were plenty of bikes that won awards that did not perform like well made bikes. I would love to participate again next year but only if the bikes are judged after the race.
Secondly, I thought the whole locking requirement was a solution looking for a problem. When did it become difficult to lock a bike? Tony’s lock was clever but one still needed something to carry the U section of the lock. So I’m not seeing that as an advance. I hope (genuinely) the design won’t compromise the steerer. I’m not picking on you Tony. I just wouldn’t go there. The King idea of the cable in the top tube just makes the additional weight of the lock a permanent or semi permanent to the bike. If it doesn’t rattle I’d be surprised. Again, what problem has been solved? What problems have been created? I don’t have the answers but I do know that locking a bike up is not a problem in need of solving.
Third, I’d like to see an alignment between the judging points and the race aspect. The requirements were such that most bikes were overbuilt is carrying capacity for the given race. That’s not bad and I’m not advocating transportation bikes being only able to carry 10#. But that load carrying capacity was all that was necessary for the race. Anymore carrying capacity was like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Not a bad tool. Just the wrong one for the job.
Fourth, if it’s a race then lets race. If the race is structured like Nascar where there’s rules to make the bikes very similar to each other, fine. But then spell that out in writing. Otherwise, if you call it a race well then it’s a race and I’m going to build what I think is the fastest bike for the given course.
Those are some of my criticisms but I don’t want to end on that. I supported the event by participating and will do so again if I see the event evolving into something meaningful. My rider had a great time and the promoters should feel proud for putting on a fun event.
P.S. who are the members of Oregon Manifest? That’s a real question.
on Oct 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Curt,
Thanks for your thoughtful critique of the event. It appears you were not alone in your observations. I agree it seems like a good event, and hopefully the organizers will take these comments to heart to improve the event. I’ve organized a lot of events in my various careers and know things aren’t always easy or come out the way you planned. I’m planning on participating next time and we’ll see if these things get ironed out.
I’m not sure who the Oregon Manifest is put it seemed like part of their mission was to promote local frame builders which would be a bit of a conflict with the mission of the Challenge.
on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN – A postmortem (of sorts) of @oregonmanifest. Comments from builders are VERY informative. http://tinyurl.com/ycpmatd
on Oct 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I share some of the frustration and all of the awe with Oregon Manifest. I covered the Constructors Design Challenge for bikeportland.org and volunteer on a few nights when the gallery is open. The organizers certainly did a fine job. I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing many of the builders. Here are a few observations.
In speaking with Mauricio Rebolledo, http://www.rebolledocycles.com/, I heard what I thought was a great insight. He brought a beautiful bike that he felt he could ride on the streets, pick up the groceries, then pop off the fenders, etc. and race it in cyclocross. In other words, a multi-purpose bike. Like many riders, and I suspect many commenters here, I have a few bicycles. But, multiple capabilities in one bike make real sense for the average buyer. I would love to have a purpose-built city bike, but I can hardly justify it because it would mean one more bike in the basement while others, perfectly capable, sitting idle when I needed to go to the grocery store.
The many elements of the finished bikes, even if very few could be called strictly “transport” bikes, will inspire others and perhaps make their way into production bicycles. For example, the internal cable for security and Tony Pereira’s integrated U-lock. Further, to see a number of these bikes with dyno hubs being ridden over a 78 mile course and some with internal geared hubs sends a message that these can be normal and acceptable components. We don’t need to rely upon brightly polished racing hubs to get us from a to b. Those are just two examples.
While the Oregon Manifest featured many Oregon builders, it was not exclusively a Portland or even Oregon showcase. Of the 31 entrants, 17 were from Oregon, so just a bit more than half. In fact, as I was finishing my interviews, Jocelyn Sycip, director, stressed that this was intended to be broader than Portland or Oregon. Witness the significant gallery “Dreams On Wheels” from Denmark.
As for who Oregon Manifest is, it is a domestic non profit corporation headquartered at Chris King Precision Components. I don’t know if there are such things as members or who they might be, though it’s fairly easy to find the folks managing the various programs.
With the full range of activities under way with Oregon Manifest, I think they will succeed in raising awareness of bicycling even in a very bicycle-centric town. And, the galleries, events and parties will certainly inspire some to get on a bike. That’s a win, I think.